₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Delightful argument:
But how can you seperate time and the universe?.

Time is intangible, whereas the universe is physical and tangible.

I do not accept the idea that time is physical or material. On the contrary it seems obvious to me that Time is -

The intangible, necessary and self-existent continuum into which events are interpolated.

Just by the way, I have a similar view of space. It seems obvious to me that it is the necessary and self-existent continuum into which things are interpolated.

For those who contend that space was created by or at the moment of the big bang and is confined to the universe, I pose the eternal question - Into what is the universe expanding?

You are implying that time is infinite and the universe is finite.

The Universe is demonstrably finite.

I disagree. Time and space are intertwined. I speculate that at some point they are one and the same.

At the point of God.

If god(for want of a better name) or the triggerer is an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe also be an uncaused cause?

Uncaused elements are self-existent and intangible. Nothing material can thus be self-existent, or uncaused.

This is because that which is self-existent is also immutable, whereas the universe evidentially is subject to change.

Here's an expatiation -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.32.html#msg7369083

plaetton:
My people perish for lack of knowledge. I always argue blind faith is grossly insufficient to answers questions about reality. Every one is arguing on this particular thread from a purely religious angle.
Lets try something new. Lets apply our knowledge of archeological history and science to this debate and see where we may arrive at.
To understand the relationship between Aaron and mary, one needs to know who Aaron was and what Mary really means.
Modern science has come to identify what they call Mitocondrial DNA. Mitocondrial dna is said to be dna passed on from mother to daughter unchanged ad infinitum. In other words, one can trace a lineage up to many thousand years through the mitocondrian dna. Infact an extensive scientific study has been done where the first female, called Mitocondrial Eve, has been identified as having originated in south east Africa around Tanzania.

It appears that the ancient egyptians understood this idea because the pharoahnic or kingly lineage was passed on by the female members of the royal family. These females were called Mery(the beloved). The Mery's were held as sacred and were therefore highly sought after by the male members of the royal family(usually their brothers and cousins). In ancient Egypt, the crown prince had t[/b]o marry a [b]Mery (usually his half sister or cousin) in order to ascend to the throne.
So, in essence, mery or mary was a title and not a name and was usually attached to the name of the ruling diety of that era. For example, meri-kiya, meri-aten, meri-ammon (today pronounced mari-am). since the mery females were sacred, it was easy to protect and track their lineage for hundreds of genarations. Since moses was a prince in egypt, he had to marry a mery(mery-am) in order to ascend to the throne of egypt. He tried but failed,leading to his exit, or early abdication and exile from egypt with the isrealites. that is why they called him the mosis(similar to Tut-mosis,am-mosis, etc.) Some mosis was also a title and not a name. The only pharoah who abdicated his throne in egypt was pahraoh ammen-hotep 111 who changed his allegiance from the god ammen to the god Aten(or adonai)and changed his name to pharoah Ank-naten.
The isrealites carried this tradition with them up till the time of mary, mother of jesus and a custodian of the sacred kingly blood line. mery was her title, the bible somehow, did not give us her real name . Does it surprise you that her cousin, mother of John the baptist, was also named mary? Because they were both merys from the same blood line, both impregnated by the holy ghost, Infact, the The Johanites( a religious sect in present day iraq) believe that john the baptist was the true messaih(heir to the throne of isreal) and that jesus and his mother usurped his heritage for themselves. funny huh?
In isreal, the marys erved as vestal virgins in the temples and were refered to as scarlet women or hores. This last word was mistranslated to whores and so mary magdala, vestal virgin of magdala, was erroneously painted as a LovePeddler by bible translators.Therefore , It is also not surpising that jesus, as heir to the throne of isreal, also had to mary a mery, the mery of magdala or mary magdelene.
Ank-ara-on or Aaron,, half brother of Moses and also a crown prince also had to mary a mery(in this case, his sister) with a hope to capture the pharoahnic throne.
So a reference to mary as sister of aaron is in order and not a contradiction in any way.

My 2 cents.

Hmmmmmmmmm! Greatest post on this thread. Many kudos for introducing a refreshingly different perspective.

The thread is meaningless in my opinion, the posers it raises are meaningless regardless of the answers given to them, and I did think it odd that it should gain any attention amongst serious minded persons - exactly because there is no point of view on the question which is significant in creditting or discreditting the substance of any of the Judaic-based religions.

However reading your post was most refreshing because it addressed the question from an angle no one else seems to have considered. Intriguing post. Thanks very much.

plaetton:
Real time or scientific time are just semantics we devise to advance our arguments.Time is still time. Time is a duration of consciousness within or outside the context of motion. The concept of time is probably the most enigmatic in the study of physics.

Indeed.

However, i think we get confused about time because our consciousness is programmed to view time as liner that is- having a starting point. But jus suppose, as is being theorized recently by quantum physicists, that time is non-linear and therefore having no beginning(in the way we understand it).

Time, being a self-existent reality, has no beginning.

If that is true, then no beginning would logical mean no creator or first cause as Deepsight likes to put it.

I have not once put my foot forward for a first cause of time, because time is self existent. It is thus uncaused.

The universe, on the other hand, is not self existent, and evidentially had a commencement. Accordingly, it requires a cause - as the implacable reasoning of the cosmological argument, correctly and logically deduces that all things which have a commencement, must per force have a trigger, or cause, for such commencement.

Time had no commencement. This is what I have consistently stated.

If we can contemplate the notion of non-lnear time without a beginning, then the universe would not have needed a first cause or creator.

Time is not the universe, and the universe is not eternal in the past.

^^^Bro, you should write. You flow.

True, i agree with Pastor Jo, it generally is not very helpful - and I can say that as one who has wasted a great deal of energy doing such. It is, truly, generally futile.

However I should say that that is in general terms. In specific terms, Enigma is also spot-on regarding the question of dealing with spiritual highway-men.

Further, there is a great deal of misinterpretation of dogma which can cause real and present harm to people - and such should certainly be assidously campaigned against. Just to give an extreme example - the boko-haramist who believes that terrorism is justified jihad as a tool of vanquising what he sees an an evil foreign culture - this is just one example of a flawed religious view that all right thinking people should campaign against.

You should refer this question to experts on physical spiritual bodies -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-429593.0.html

Daiquiri:
^

Hear out. Keep on unreeling.

I for one have always been fascinated with death - it's ramification

Death, most of times is intricate

Better I hold my peace for now on this too

Can you remember being dead before?

Daiquiri:
and the way back to his original country was to die.

This says it all. Death could not thus be a ritiual sacrifice in the fashion supposed by the Christian. But i best hold my peace on that one.

thehomer:
You're trying to speak metaphorically of scientific information while at the same time trying to make the metaphor somehow scientifically valid. What you've done with evolution and the factory is personification. You're free to do that but be careful not to confuse what you're doing for passing across scientific information.

Well, do you think mountains are alive? If you think they are, please tell me what you consider life to be. If not, then I hope you proceed to clarify when you're speaking metaphorically or scientifically on a topic that is basically scientific.

No thanks. Your comments on the question of art imitating life were more than jarring enough.

^ Still on holiday?

Bump! This was soooooo interesting!

thehomer:
Evolution as used in science isn't creation. I wonder who according to you is doing the creating and what would you say is the target of this progress?

Don't be obtusely obsessed with the craze to negate the existence of deities. It is irrelevant. Evolution, as described in science, results in the creation of new species continuously. Is this a lie?

Lawd, just the word "creation" even if used the the context of a factory putting together cars seems to upset you. Calm down!

Target of creation, you ask. I told you before. I said that art imitates life.

And that as such, creation is the natural expression of the mind of the the creating element. That element which itself is the infinite summation of reality.

But then you went on to say that mountains are not alive. And so, ta ta ta ta ta ta!

^ Evolution is creation in continuous progress

^^^ What more can I add?

Nothing!

KAG:
Having said that, I'll be careful to use less strong terms in future.

You certainly should.

I don't think you know what the term "hand-waving" means.

Lol. As I wrote that I soooo knew you would say exactly that. Perhaps you don’t realize that finger-pointing through counter-accusations whilst entirely refusing to address the point raised is indeed a most airy dismissal.

Yes, you have indicated that the earth and humans are enough to suppose the universe has a purpose.

That is not the way that I framed it. It is rather the existence of self-conscious minds that points to this.

The insignificance of our planet, particularly when it's noted that it is surrounded by innumerable lifeless planets and rocks lends itself to the idea that the universe lacks an over-arching purpose.

Firstly, you should be able to draw a distinction between physical sizes and the relevance of the existence of self-conscious minds – particularly when discussing a subject such as purpose – the size and number of lifeless rocks and planets is thus of no consequence in this regard.

Secondly, as you are all too aware, the earth could not exist on its own without the supporting super-structure of the solar system, just as the solar system could not exist on its own without the further supporting super-system of the milky-way galaxy – nor could the galaxy exist on its own outside its cluster, and the cluster could not exist without the over-all super structure of the universe. For this reason, your argument about the existence of numerous lifeless planets and rocks does not sit properly in the least: for such structures are at all events necessary precursors for the existence of planets such as the earth in the first place.

Your argument reads like trying to locate a tree that does not derive its existence from the environment and soil about it. And then worse, complaining about the vastness of that environment, and the fact that you have not seen other trees therein. That simply does not wash as an argument for lack of purpose for the very reason that such an environment was needed for the tree to exist in the first place therein.

Parsimoniously, the universe appears to just be, with the evidence not revealing any purpose on a grand scale.

It seems to me that when you speak about “evidence” you are willing to take everything into consideration except the Earth, its stock of life, and even your own sentience. For some strange reason, all these are to be excluded from the “evidence.”

You are also aware that man has explored less than a pin point of the universe, and as such it is rather hasty to conclude that the earth is the only planet bearing life – indeed, scientists do agree that given that we are made of star-dust, it is statistically improbable that the universe with its staggering size would not contain other life forms. Any one who thinks otherwise probably has not come to grips with the size of the universe. I am certain however, that you have an idea.

Philosophically, the argument may go either way, but I see more merit and coherence in syllogisms that don't have to resort to the unnecessary personage of deities.

I have never said anything about a personage.

On the contrary, it is life affirming.

How so, please?

It's what the evidence indicates. You without any evidence, "sitting on this speck of a planet [. . .]yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has [a purpose]. Implying - often subtly - that we are it.

I repeat: I do not believe mankind on earth to be the sole purpose of the Universe. But yes, I do say that the universe is an amazing enough thing to inspire the idea that there is a thought behind it. I do not see how that is unreasonable. To be sincere, the idea that it has no meaning or purpose is starkly more bizarre.

Nonsense. Will you stop arguing against things of which you clearly have little knowledge. While it has often cropped up in many of our discussions, it's getting over the top now.

Lol. If that’s the case, why keep responding? You could just gallop off in a huff on your high horse and ignore my ignorance, couldn’t you? Aha.

By the way, still keeping the score on positive affirmations? You just made more, despite a lack of omniscience.

Oh dear, but since you acceded you are not omniscient, then surely you could not know whether or not I am omniscient, and just by the way, I just might be.

Anyway, to address your argument. Several "non-conscious unicellular organisms" do survive with senses. They have had an evolutionary pressure to develop those senses. Euglena (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena), for instance, have a very basic eyespot with which they use to observe their habitat.

In the first instance, you know very well that the eyespot of which you speak is not an eye in the proper sense. It is an organ tailored to detect certain waves of light for the organism to adjust better for photosynthesis. But this does not disturb the argument being made at all events so I will not dispute that or tarry on that.

Secondly, I should state that I speak of senses that deliver the quality of sentience to a being. A unicellular organism that is able to feel its environment and as such may move towards or away from light, for example, is not thereby sentient.

Thirdly and most critically – let me simply state that to the extent that an Euglena may have any form of direct observation of its environment and even engage in some rudimentary form of hunting, then such an organism indeed bears some form of consciousness however miniscule or rudimentary.

This does nothing to take away the essential point I made: namely that organisms with no such observable levels of consciousness vastly outnumber all conscious life forms on the earth. This is an incontrovertible fact: and so long as this remains the case, then you CANNOT argue that starting with non-conscious unicellular organisms, there would have been any evolutionary impetus whatsoever towards consciousness.

This fact remains firm and cast in steel: exactly what impetus would have led such organisms to develop features of consciousness when they were surviving and multiplying at an excellent rate: indeed – they still survive and multiply at a greater rate than any self-conscious creatures do.

You thus cannot argue survivability as a reason for the evolution of conscious or self-conscious organisms – given that non-conscious organisms such as those survived and thrived even better than self-conscious creatures!

Senses aid survival: whether it be in unicellular or multicellular species.

Senses of the sentient variety are completely irrelevant for the class of organisms I referred to: and we must indeed start with that class because the core evolutionary riddle is exactly how that class began to evolve into conscious and eventually self-conscious creatures?

Fair enough.
That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Except when the evidence suggests it. If a species evolves out of using eyes because it impinges their survival, it goes to show that survival plays an aspect in the use and disuse of organs.

You have yourself blundered without recognizing it. You say – “use and disuse” – this betrays the obvious fact that you are really speaking about use of already existing organs and not the development of completely new, previously absent organs.

How about you read the Origins of Species first, or at least not get your information from Creationists' quote-mines. Darwin's rhetorical style in his writings was to present a point as if insurmountable, then demolish said problem. Thus, we find that on the subject of the eye, Darwin raises the question, assures there must be some difficulty in approaching its evolution, then goes on to explain how it may have happened, beginning with:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

No doubt, having recognized a sticking point for something that rendered his theory inchoate, he needed to explain it away, didn’t he?

The evolution of the human eye remains implausible: and more implausible also the evolution of the human brain.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

So, basically, you have no physical aspect of the human eye that couldn't have developed through evolution? It would seem all you have at this point is empty rhetoric.

It is alarmingly cowardly, that you refuse to logically refute the central point in my write up – it is still staring you in the face above: and is inescapable: and I say it again:

The argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

That is the question: STOP dodging it!

So, you don't know any causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles? Empty rhetoric again. You should dig up that thread and realize that I apologised for making a mistake in mis-defining terms. Unlike some, when I'm wrong I'll always acknowledge said mistakes.

Good grief.

The mistake was not in mis-definition: you very fundamentally claimed that a quantum vacuum was as nothing – in your bid to show that virtual particles arise from “nothing” – as a way for you to show that things can arise from nothingness, and thereby avoid the basic and commonsensical wisdom that things do not arise from nothingness. This was a grave fundamental misconception because I had to draw your attention that there is in fact no such thing as a perfect vacuum, and that these vacuums contain low gaseous pressure – and that was how your contention that things arise from nothingness collapsed like a house of cards.

Now, the fact that you obviously still have not grasped the essentials of that discussion just shows who is dancing without proper dancing shoes around here!

Exactly!Well, apart from the "confused" part. Time - irrespective of how you choose to define it - started after inflation. What this means is that because of linguistic problems, we're going to struggle to define and describe the start of time and "before" it, particularly when language is predicated on time.

The problem is not linguistic. The problem is a logical problem. And the fact that you still repeat that time commenced “after” inflation is an irredeemable contradiction. There could only be an “after” if there was already a timeline. That’s iron clad.

logica:
Is this a religious topic?

The core of the discussion is the nature of time - and this has implications on the argument for creation and the existence of a creator.

ronkebp:
I won't lie oooo, my children are more important, am sorry to say, i Love my hubby but my children (son) is my number one. I used to think my hubby is my one and only, until i met another (my pickin),

Normal for women.

Thank you Justcool.

Simply and brilliantly delivered. My only issue remains that that which they describe as time is not time at all. It is rather a measurement of movement. They need to find another word for it.

^ Make up your mind, friend.

KAG:
Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein.

Counter-accusation does not answer the question.

The fact remains that you have positively asserted that the universe has no purpose. To make that statement, you need to be omniscient.

Hand-waving at my own propositions does not do anything – I simply have conveyed my own impressions as to the purpose of the universe – I have not come to you affirming positively anything in that regard. You, on the other hand, have stated severally and positively that the universe does NOT have a purpose.

Aside from requiring omniscience, it is also a hugely presumptuous statement for a tiny being living on a tiny speck of a planet to make. We do not even know the reaches of our own galaxy alone, and yet, one tiny individual, living on one speck of a planet, boldly affirms that the entire super-structure – of which he knows next to nothing – has no purpose.

I am struggling to be very polite when I respectfully state that [-----!#$%&?!@$%!!!-----] . . . . . . , well – that is beyond the borders of the most ridiculous presumptions that could possibly be imagined.

Aside from this, you may not appreciate that it is a contradictory, self-defeating and nihilistic statement for a sentient being to make.

By the way, we do have a good idea of how the universe may have become: expansion from a singularity.

Neither you nor anyone even knows what exactly that singularity was, how it was, and why it was. And yet, sitting on this speck of a planet - - you yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has no purpose.

You are God! I bow down! I worship you!

Survival. Species with senses have an evolutionary advantage.

Despite being God you do not read. Or perhaps you don’t need to read since you are God. Because if you had read, surely you would have grasped the argument made. Despite being God, you failed to grasp the argument made. Here – I’ll simplify it – non conscious unicellular organisms survive and thrive sufficiently and indeed excellently - and thus have no conceivable evolutionary need to develop any senses whatsoever – given that unconscious life is more successful than conscious life on earth

Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

It cannot be such a small pale blue dot, if it is the abode of a being such as yourself, who is so important and knowledgeable of the entire universe as to be able to make statements about the purposelessness of the entire system, can it?

And no, I am not, and would never suggest that the earth alone is the purpose of the entire universe. Although not proven yet, I am of the view that there exist hordes of planets out there bearing intelligent sentient beings. But that is a matter for another day. Or another lifetime.

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it.

That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

If you had read anything I wrote you would have seen the very careful pains I went to exactly to differentiate these.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible.

You are into voodoo.

Worse, you did not read what I wrote about the argument from consciousness. I informed you that only self-conscious creatures would require powers of observation. You clearly have not taken the time to assimilate the very basic facts inherent therein, or the obvious implications.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

No didn't.

Again, Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

Your ignorance on this subject has been repeatedly exposed – and I needn’t refer you to the thread where you tendered an apology for making wrong suppositions after I specifically corrected your wrong (un)scientific suppositions on the matter.

Amazing, for one who constantly states that others “do not understand the science” they are discussing.

I will not rehash the matter here. It has long since been closed against you.

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

Strange. Why then did you say this –

”The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.’

Unless you are willfully and irretrievably confused, you would recognize that you cannot speak of “ante” outside the precept of time. Notions of “before” and “after” are evidentially time based notions. You also stated that time commenced “after” inflation. You cannot use the word “after” outside a precept of time. Just like the word- “before”, the word - “after” is also an evidentially time-bound notion. I will not debate that with you even for a million dollars.

^ Amazingly, or perhaps not amazingly, you regugitated your former response completely ignoring that which is raised in this thread: namely the fact that there is a possible change in the science involved. Please do not tell me that the co-relation with the nature of time escapes you.

thehomer:
Did I ever deny the validity of philosophical reasons?

I did not say that you did: it is merely refreshing on account of the fact that I personally have not seen any single philosophical postulation that you have ever agreed with.

That will depend on the described creator we're talking about.

Having discussed at length with me, I am certain you have an idea as to my conception of God. Please answer my question with reference to your understanding of my conception of God.

I will be most obliged if you would do so.

Many thanks.

thehomer:
The difference is that certain things simply cannot exist due to philosophical reasons among other things.

Its interesting that you admit the validity of "philosophical reasons". . . .Can i ask you if the idea of a creator is one such thing that "simply cannot exist due to philosophical reasons among other things."

Thank you.

I have long advocated a Philosophy childboard.

Even when the dictator is slaughering millions of people as Hitler did?
Ever heard of self defense?
Get real.

Unfinished business here too. . . brb

Ok. . . .I should continue with this. . . .

Yes.

Adolf Hitler, for example.

@ Justcool, excellent submissions. Profound.

But how may such a system be acheived on earth?

Is it not also dependent on the integrity of those implementing the system? Is it not also hugely susceptible to mis-application? Gifted people placed in authourity would be susceptible to dictatorial tendencies, and such a government becomes absolutely impossible to question or criticise, no? Is that healthy?

Idehn:
@OP
Uugh, I shudder to think that anyone would indulge in such a mad proposition(no offense). Forsaking all reason, science, and common sense just so we can take the easy way out and say our laws are "magically" endowed so do not question them. We as human beings are better than this.

The OP was posed as a question, and did not make any suggestion, so I have no idea what you are on about.

Deep Sight:
Of all the forms of government manknd has conceived and applied; which form do we think would be most in line with the divine will? Or for those who might not believe in divinity, let us rephrase the question. Which form or method of human government is most reflective of a higher spiritual order for society?

Democracy? Vox Populi vox dei. . . the voice of the people is the voice of God?

An absolute mornachy? . . .The king is anointed of God. . . ?

A Constitutional Mornachy. . . the King is anointed of God but the voice of the people is the voice of God?

A Theocracy?. . . Government by divine guidance. . . such as government based on the tenets of a given Religion. . . think Saudi Arabia?

What about Plato's ideal state, governed by an aristocracy of philosopher kings? -

http://www.suite101.com/content/platos-ideal-state--plato-and-the-aristocratic-government-a278155

What do you think?

You are so eager to condemn any hint of spirituality that you did not even notice the following -

What about Plato's ideal state, governed by an aristocracy of philosopher kings? -

Pastor Kun:
@deepsight
The 'faster than light' theory is not yet conclusive.

I am aware of that. That's why i underlined the words "may possibly" in my OP.

Question is, now that the possibility has been raised, and preliminary experiments are pointing in that direction, can we question some of the old assumptions regarding the "scfientific" nature of time.